I've already alluded to these two books published in Germany by the Ministry of Family Affairs. LifeSiteNews reveals some of the shocking content:

Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age.

"Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex," reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, "The child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same."

I found and downloaded these books, and I have to say that there is little in them to titilate a pedophile.

In fact, I can't recall a more tedious collection of psychobabble.

Are there shocking elements? Yes. And they ought to be loudly denounced.

But what of the rest of the boring drivel?

Actually, in many ways it is more insidious. The author's main contention is that children are essentially programmed to be be sexually curious. On that count, Ina-Maria Philipps might have a point. But she also seems to suggest that there is little that parents ought to do. Just about nothing a child does is wrong, it seems, nor are parents really to be much more involved than in making sure the kids don't break anything. There is little point, Philipps maintains, in resisting the wave of sexual messages that come through the media. Instead, children ought to be exposed to just about all things sexual with the parents essentially acting as tour guides.

I think I'm more offended by the implicit and constant praise of lazy parenting.

Given the tediously boring content, why would these books be of interest to pedophiles? Obviously, there is the pseudo-intellectual justification to see children as sexual playthings. But then pedophiles already believe that. What do these books add to the creepy mix? Could it be the hands-off style of parenting advocated by the Philipps?

I'm certain Ina-Maria Philipps is not advocating for pedophilia. In fact, in the second book, large age differentials in children "playing doctor" seemed to be one of the only reasons for adults to intervene. What modicum of credit that earns her is up to you to determine, but the problem for me is that for a pedophile, a world in which parents are so apathetic about their children's exploration into sexuality would seem like a paradise.

A child who is taught that there is a strict social constraints associated with sex verging on a taboo, even without understanding exactly why, is primed to defend himself or herself against sexual predators. Philipps worries about the mental baggage that creates around the subject of sex. I say lugging around baggage builds up muscle. On the other hand, a child who is taught that it's all good and natural is more likely to be convinced by a predator that other acts are also good and natural, and that there is no need to even mention them.

I don't have thirty pages of dreary psychoanalytical drivel to back that assertion up. Just common sense.

I can't imagine any parent who bought into what Philipps is peddling in these two books would hesitate to act to protect their child against a predator. Philipps is simply not that good a writer to undermine that natural drive to protect.

But the point I'm making is that children need to protect themselves. And I worry that Philipps message might interfere with that.

Or at least it emboldens a predator to make a move. I wonder if pedophiles would use these books as guides on what language to use to speak to children, or what signs to look for to identify a child being raised according to these guidelines, or what impressive arguments to make if suspicions are raised.

Yes these books have moments of mindboggling grossness. I can't imagine too many parents actually acting out on Philipps' stranger notions. But the rest of it seems just about reasonable enough that, for a parent looking for an excuse not to deal with the subject, Philipps recommendations seem to transform inaction on the topic of child sexuality into progressive parenting.

I have to think that inattentive and disconnected parents are what pedophiles need.